I rather like Keeley, she may be competitive and a bit bossy, but I believe these character traits are a result of holding herself, and other people, to various standards of behaviour.

I have always objected to the viewers of BB often favouring housemates that were the least developed, the least critical, the least thoughtful, the least disciplined or the last capable and objecting to the most thoughtful, the most opinionated, the most disciplined, the most ambitious or the most organised. Alas the latter group rarely are on a journey and don't provide amusing pratfalls and social gaffes and are seen as distant and controlling.

Well I hope Keeley manages to do well and manages the house activities and deposes the lingering and rather unpleasant air of the authority of Steve.

I don't think she can be described as thoughtful - opinionated, competitive, bossy, disciplined and organised certainly, but not thoughtful. If she was thoughtful she'd realise that she has no right to go into an established group and believe that she has a right to take control of them. They're not her employees and she's not their manager - they all have equal standing, it's a social group.

To my mind it's arrogant to believe that of all of them, she's the one best suited to be in control - or to even assume that control is needed, or wanted. Just because she has a need to control, doesn't mean that others either need or want her control and since they're all independent adults, they have a right to decide whether someone takes control over them or not. In other words, it's not a situation where she's been elected as group leader; she intended to impose her control on them irrespective of whether they wanted it or not because she'd decided for her own reasons that's what she was going to do. It's insensitive, arrogant and to my mind, an ego trip.

In the event, they're not playing ball. She didn't seem to anticipate that their characters and existing dynamics were strong enough for her efforts to be simply batted away.

Well the group had seemed to succumb already to control by Steve and so anything which usurps his control is a good thing, and no one elected him or asked him to dominate the house.

But anyway, her control as I described it is a very light touch, she doesn't demand things, she rarely directs the behaviour of others and the only person she seems to have actively confronted or directed is Steve. Any control she has gained is very benign, and it would appear she has gained the level of control which she planned. She doesn't seem to aspire to acquiring any more control or authority in the house, she seems happy just to be able to voice her opinons.

She said on BBLB before going in if I remember, that she was going to take control of the house. If the degree of control she's managed to achieve is light, then I think that's entirely down to the other housemates just going their own way, rather than any intentions of light control on her part. I suspect that once she got into the house and became part of the dynamics, involving herself with these people rather than just watching, she saw that she would have to fit in with them as a group, rather than assuming a fantasy level of control. Her involvement from the first night with Steve may have been an effort to gradually and surreptititiously take control from him - or not, I don't know. In any event, she may either have been yet another housemate who talked herself up in her VT and prior to her entrance to the house, or she may have discovered, when she actually joined the group, that her plans were unrealistic. She can't have been unaware that the way she came across to the other housemates initially made her unpopular - to the extent that the majority of the house colluded in manufacturing a win for Andrew in the cooking task, when her's had obviously been the most enjoyable meal.

As far as Steve's control goes, I find him a generally obnoxious character. I think the only reason the others give him deference is because of his disabilities and the way he's coped with them, and his having put his life and safety at risk in the service of his country, both things the others respect. As a result, they cut him a lot of slack and don't challenge him or his assumption that he's in control. The only one who expresses reservations about their lack of challenge to him is Ben, and then only privately.

I think Steve assumes he's fit to be in charge because he was in the army up to age 19, because he's served and received injuries in the service of his country (an experience he probably thinks no one else can possibly understand - hence his limited view that only members of the armed forces and politicians are allowed to have a view on military deployment - no one else is fit to comment), because he's the eldest in the group and male, because he believes he's a dominant character, and he also thinks he's clever (hence his cringeworthy remarks about playing with Keeley, indicating he's onto her 'game' and she's no match for him). In fact to me, he doesn't appear to have developed much as a person since his days in the army - he still comes across as very 'army' - and to the viewers generally he's stultifyingly boring and dull.

He's using their deference to his history and disabilities to bolster his own image of being in control - he imagines they're deferring to him because he's a natural leader - whereas they're deferring to him because of his history and disabilities.

I do think it would be good if his control was challenged - but I'd rather see it challenged honestly - more along the lines of what Ben's been saying in private, for that to be acted upon publically, rather than some other control-freak attempting to wrest control from him because she wants to be the boss instead, irrespective of what anyone else might want.